List models available from configured providers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (query), the scope (all configured providers by default), and the output (model ids). It does not discuss edge cases like unreachable providers or caching, but for a simple query tool, the disclosure is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first explaining the action, second providing the use case. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Though there is an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior adequately for a simple tool. Minor lack of details about error states or configuration prerequisites, but still complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'provider', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond restating that it queries each configured provider by default, so no additional value over schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Query' and the resource 'each configured provider for the model ids'. It also provides a use case ('discover valid model names before editing the config or choosing participants'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'discuss' and 'list_participants'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: 'Useful to discover valid model names before editing the config or choosing participants.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear and distinguishes from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.